Algorithms are taking our jobs

Higher-paying, middle-class jobs have, until now, been more secure because they require human judgment... but the humble algorithm is putting an end to that, writes Alan Kohler.

The wheel was invented long ago but it took more than 6,000 years for it to be attached to suitcases, and thus become really useful.

Much the same goes for the algorithm. It was invented by a Persian mathematician, one Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, from whose surname the word is derived.

For more than a thousand years algorithms existed purely in the arcane toolkits of mathematicians ... until a decade or two ago, when they were attached to the internet and therefore directly to the vast amounts of data that are being hoovered up every minute of every day.

Algorithms are now changing the world, and what's more, they are assisting in the destruction of the middle-classes and the widening gap between the rich and poor.

Algorithms have two qualities that make them world shattering: they make decisions and very few people understand them (including yours truly).

The second of these things has helped create a new elite of technical druids who are getting fabulously wealthy. Inequality is not just getting worse because quantitative easing has enriched bankers and investors, or because Ronald Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate in America: it's also because the elite class of people who understand and control algorithms are using them to get rich by exploiting the rest of us, who have no idea what's going on.

What's going on is that algorithms are replacing middle-class jobs. The key differentiator in wage levels is the ability, and the power, to make decisions - to assess data using our senses and draw conclusions from them. The more decisions you make, the more you get paid.

Arguably the very existence of a middle-class rests on the democratisation of decision-making in the 20th century, flowing from the end of slavery in the 19th century (slavery involves no decisions and no wage).

Low-paying jobs generally involve few decisions and over the past 15-20 years many of the basic mechanical jobs have moved to lower-paying China and other emerging countries. More recently robots have been taking them: even Chinese factories are being automated and 3D printers have become the ultimate in localised automated manufacturing.

Higher-paying, middle-class jobs have, until now, been more secure because they require human judgment. Journalists, doctors, academics, drivers, pilots, musicians, architects etc perform functions that require the assessment of complex data and decisions to be made based on them.

Now humans are being left floundering, not by computers which are just collections of switches, or by the internet, which is just a network of speeding data packets, but by algorithms saying to themselves "if this, then that", over and over.

The author of Who Owns The Future?, Jaron Lanier, wrote in the New York Times:

Jobs involving communication and expression (music, journalism and so forth) are suddenly much harder to come by, because information is now held to be free.

The fate of journalism and music awaits every other industry, and every kind of job, unless this pattern is undone. As this century unfolds, technology will continue to evolve. More and more activities will be operated by software. Instead of Teamsters, there will be robotic trucks. Where there had once been miners, there will be mining robots. Instead of factories, there will be 3-D printers in every home. Experimental robots have already outperformed many a white-collar worker, including the legal researcher, the pharmacist and the scientific investigator.

This is the point of Rupert Murdoch's and News Corp CEO Robert Thomson's frustration with Google, which led Thomson to write to the European Commission in September asking it to reconsider the settlement with Google, and describing it as a "platform for piracy".

Google - and Apple, Amazon and Facebook, especially Facebook - are in the vanguard of the new super-rich elite who are collecting vast quantities of data and writing algorithms to analyse it, make decisions and make money.

Algorithms are not only serving up the content that users are most likely to want in their Facebook news feeds, they are even writing the articles. Algorithms constantly refine Google's search engine to make it more powerful, more attuned to its users.

The problem is that we are all serving up our data to these companies for free. In a way it's a pact with the devil: they make their services free; we let them know everything about us, including what we're doing, all the time. Their algorithms use the data to sell advertising.

It's impossible for companies like News Corp to compete with "free", which is why they're fighting back, trying to get it seen as piracy.

But there is far more to algorithms than better-targeted advertising. Jaron Lanier's long argument that the internet and software are hollowing out the middle classes and leading to greater inequality is given added sharpness by the current blossoming of the debate about inequality, which Rupert Murdoch recently joined in, along with Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen.

That inequality is in part caused by the unemployment that resulted from the 2008 recession, followed by the asset price inflation promulgated by quantitative easing. And as I pointed out last week, rising inequality actually began in the 1980s, after President Ronald Reagan reversed the New Deal of 1931 and cut the top marginal tax rate (Reaganomics, not QE, caused inequality, October 28).

The other thing going on, and in time perhaps the most important, is the effect of technology, and specifically the decision-making algorithms that are replacing middle class jobs.

But unlike my bosses, Rupert Murdoch and Robert Thomson, I don't think anything will - or can - be done about it.

The combination of Abu Al-Khwarizmi's invention with the data that modern humans are prepared to give up without charge is far too powerful.

Alan Kohler is finance presenter on ABC News. He tweets at@alankohler. View his full profilehere.

Dave:

06 Nov 2014 11:59:05am

"and now algorithms what ever they are"

An algorithm is the process you design to get the result you're after. In cooking, the we call the algorithm for preparing a meal the recipe. In the article, computers can be 'trained' to make decisions in certain 'human' ways, so we need to understand how humans operate and why we make certain decisions under certain conditions. How we break that all down and 'explain' it to a machine in computer code is the algorithm.

The argument Alan is making is that low educated Australians will never be fully employed as our culture advances technically. Change is scaling up very fast. Re-education is a necessity, but many will be left behind.

JoeBloggs:

07 Nov 2014 11:40:12am

Harry,

With a long history of providing capable, willing and rugged miners Australians are ensured a long period of employment as the process of colonising the solar system and in particular mining the asteroid belts is undertaken (the beginnings of this process having begun already and the legislation to enable the commercialisation of space is already before the USA congress).

Exchanging on isolated location with fewer modern comforts (outback mining locations) for another isolated location with fewer modern comforts (and orbital mining settlement) isn't such a big transition perhaps.

John1:

"In cooking, the we call the algorithm for preparing a meal the recipe"

Poor attempt at an analogy and incorrect to boot. A recipe is a list of ingredients together with a set of instructions.

An algorithm is a defined procedure used for calculation, processing and reasoning where the result changes when fed different data. In essence it is a problem solving procedure. A recipe is pre-determined and so are the instructions.

An algorithm to bake a cake for example would be a mathematical procedure used to calculate the recipe, it is not the recipe itself, that is the result.

jehane:

07 Nov 2014 6:30:51am

I disagree. I think that a cooking recipe is a reasonable analogy for an algorithm. Take for example a recommendations algorithm. The ingredients are the inputs - your previous searches, items you've browsed, items you've bought, items in the same category other people have bought, what other people have bought when buying the same items as you. The instructions are the actual algorithm - what to do with the inputs. The "cake" is the output - what to recommend to you the next time you log in to your shopping or search site. You can tweak the ingredients and instructions to change the final cake.

Dave:

07 Nov 2014 9:49:53am

I agree with your definitions, I was trying to briefly explain the concept in everyday terms without sounding like a computer science teacher. If you've got a better day to day example feel free. Jehane's idea above definitely improved my analogy.

BUlldust:

06 Nov 2014 1:29:43pm

Even some highly paid jobs aren't safe. "Watson" the computer & software system that beat, I should say pantsed, the all time Jeopardy greats (US game show) in a live contest, has been studying oncology since. Soon Watson will out-diagnose the best of the best. Watson doesn't sleep, and could diagnose patients around the world ... maybe they'll make an app for that.

I, for one, welcome our new soon-to-be computer overlords. If we are nice, they may look after us :D

I am firmly of the belief (as an economist) that we are heading for massive disruptions of the economic systems & markets we are used to. It may take 2-3 decades, but it is coming. This time it is unequivocably different (to the industrial revolution for example) because the machines will be able to do just about everything we can, for all practical intents and purposes. Caregivers and entertainers may have a job longer than most ... hard to replace that human touch. Other than that, it's pretty much fair game.

Morestone:

06 Nov 2014 5:01:43pm

'snax, its happening already across a wide range of "professional" disciplines, although at this stage probably due more to technology making use of cheaper labour (eg. get an Indian quantity surveyor to do your costings rather than pay 4 times more an Aussie) rather than being 90-100% smart machine based.

The professional, educated middle class has been shrinking in the US for example, although I read an article the other day that was arguing the rich elite are starting to have some regrets as it affects consumption and ultimately their wealth.

Bulldust:

07 Nov 2014 11:38:17am

I have visited Rio Tinto's remote operations centre. It is stunning. Imagine a warehouse sized room with many workstations, each with at least half a dozen large screen monitors. looks like a set out of War Games. There is also the monster screen along the back wall which covers the entire operation from pit to ship.

I saw a Youtube clip on warehouse bots as well. It is funny to see the area marked as "safe" for humans to stand in. Can't let those irrational creatures get in the way of the efficient machines.

JoeBloggs:

07 Nov 2014 12:41:56pm

Bulldust,

Replicate that 'remote operations centre' many times and you will have a glimpse of the future of work.

The same systems will be used to monitor, control and operate the future asteroid mining operations, orbital foundries and entire processes involved in the industrialisation of space and the building of the locations necessary to house the population that will exist in orbital settlements based near local planets and celestial bodies in our solar system.

Let the robots/drones do the hard work, they can be our arms and hands. We can be the eyes and brains of the operation.

It makes sense doesn't it, at least massive multinationals think so.... and you can bet they have an eye on the future of mining (in space) too.

Not Such a Golden Oldie:

06 Nov 2014 2:18:48pm

At last an economist that I can have some respect for, not the usual breed that assume magical thinking will automatically solve any future problems. Sorry BUlldust, I needed to get that of my chest.Seriously, it is about time we started another of those MATURE debates about the future of work and the future of our class/wealth divisions. The old "other jobs will arise to replace the old ones now destroyed" seems to me to be another bit of magical thinking. As a retired professional (accountant), I have in the past been too complacent when the so-called blue collar jobs were disappearing, being replaced by machines and/or overseas workers working for less. It will soon be the turn of the professional workers, accountants, lawyers, teachers, professors, engineers, even some medical professionals to be replaced by machines or lesser paid overseas professional workers.We are sleep-walking into this new world without a clue about the enormous changes to come to our society and how those changes will change us and our society. I am an old man and unlikely to be too much affected, but my children and grandchildren and your children and grandchildren will certainly be affected and will need to invent new societies, new politics, new economics, probably new ethical thinking to deal with the changes.The time to start thinking about the future is now.

the lollipop guild:

06 Nov 2014 2:35:52pm

the answer to the "new economics" NSAGO is the "new politics". the digital age could just as easily facilitate a new type of democracy - instant and online and truly representative. but will the existing elites allow that, absent a revolution?

Demack:

06 Nov 2014 2:57:10pm

Has anyone ever noticed how there are traffic lights at a lot of school crossings and yet we still employ "lollipop people" to get the kids across the road safely? Kids sure must be a lot dumber these days than when I went to school - or are "lollipop people" a bunch of very smart people by being paid by local councils to do exactly the same thing as the traffic lights were designed to do! People will find ways of being paid to do jobs that are not always necessary or required. You just need to create some sort of demand.

Demack:

Bulldust:

07 Nov 2014 11:42:15am

Mostly we need the lollipop people because humans are driving the vehicles. Once we eliminate that problem we probably won't need the lollipops anymore. Driverless vehicles I reckon are 10-20 years from being with us. I wonder how long before it becomes illegal to drive, given that humans will be far more dangerous behind the wheel.

Not Such a Golden Oldie:

06 Nov 2014 4:25:29pm

You are right Maryanne, we will have to rethink how we receive the basic means of living - food, shelter etc. but also the vast majority of people do want to be contributing members of society and if we are going to replace working for wages and salaries in jobs that no longer exist, what form is that likely to take.I don't mean this as just another dystopian exercise, it could also be another opportunity to re-think the meaningful life and perhaps to another leap in evolution. I am quite happy to admit that I have only vague ideas of a future society vastly different from the one that I grew up in, but my concern is that I see little evidence that people are even thinking about it and it is approaching rapidly. The lazy answer that the economists usually come up with is that new industries will arise or be invented. I call it magical thinking. I see comments likening the changes to come as the industrial revolution mark2. The industrial revolution mark1 destroyed many jobs, but also created many new ones, perhaps ir mark2 will do the same, but I wouldn't bet on it, this time there could be vastly more job destruction than job creation. Also there are questions of job satisfaction and of relative equality/inequality, perhaps life satisfaction rather than job satisfaction.I'll have to hitch a ride with Dr Who in the Tardis and see how it all pans out - or perhaps not, I may not like the answer.

Maryanne:

06 Nov 2014 10:11:11pm

Not Such a Golden Oldie,

Any chance the ABC will let us make contact because I'm really fascinated about what will happen once "work" becomes not only scarce but unneccessary. I'm really interested because you were an accountant but now are an obviously intellegent old man.

Bulldust:

07 Nov 2014 11:53:55am

There was a report, Pew Institute IIRC (don't have the computer implant yet unfortunately), which discussed the old jobs and new jobs issue. I have read it, and there is nothing in there which hadn't occured to me, but the timeframe was too short to be interesting.

Google reminds me that the title was "AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs." Sadly my wetware is not as good at recall as the interwebz :)

I don't see the future as dystopian. We will simply have a lot more leisure time. The work week now is a lot shorter than when we were chucking spears at mammals for dinner. The most likely diversion will be gaming (or some variation thereof) in virtual reality. The Matrix type universe if you will, without the drudgery of going to work. As an avid gamer of MMOs myself, I am well aware of the kind of timesink they provide.

Perhaps we can develop diversions in VR that provide people with "jobs" that are fun, but actually productive at the same time. Why not a virtual game that actually runs machinery/robots in the real world in a productive sense. Won't be as efficient as the computers, but it might give people a sense of fun and purpose.

Bread and circuses...

PS> The reason I don't seem like a typical economist is because my first degree was in mineral processing (they called it engineering, but the engineering side was light on). The economics came later.

whogoesthere:

06 Nov 2014 4:55:22pm

This scenario only applies if you believe people are defined by their jobs, and have nothing else of value in their lives. It's perfectly easy to have direction, purpose, and hope, and not roam aimlessly without doing what we call a 'job'.

Small example, I (by choice) only work two days a week. The other days (among other things) I put aside 1 1/2 hours for reading non-fiction. I've learned heaps, have widened my horizons, and it's opened my mind. That has been far more rewarding than sitting behind my old desk going through useless emails.

Applaudanum:

06 Nov 2014 6:19:11pm

It's not about being defined by one's job, whogoesthere, but it is instead about being defined by what other people are willing to put up with.

If more and more people find a way to live according to a 7-day/60 hour working week, the cost of living will rise to meet that. It will become the new norm to do that. One will be priced out of real estate, for example, if one doesn't keep up with what others are prepared to do.

Bulldust:

07 Nov 2014 12:01:01pm

I see the biggest issue as not being the end point, when things are settled into a new system, but the transition. Some serious thought needs to go into figuring out how we get through the large unemployment phase while the old economics are still in play. I see a growing civil service sector combined with unemployment payouts. Part of the problem is also the metrics that we use for 'progress.' GDP, unemployment, money supply, inflation ... these things mean something in the current/old system. They will become more meaningless as time goes on.

The current central banks are working veraciously at making the money concept reduncdant as we speak :) Maybe this is start of the transition LOL

LK:

06 Nov 2014 6:22:21pm

Whogoesthere I find your comment strange. You obviously have the money to support your easy going lifestyle and love of non fiction and do it by choice. But to many who are forced into unemployment, it's a wretched life. They can barely feed themselves and their families, put a roof over their heads, pay for expensive medical care, give their kids a good education etc. They want to work and be productive not laze around. They want the hope of a better life for themselves and family. How many suffer chronic depression because of unemployment.. Just look at any country with high unemployment and see the toll it takes on people - especially the young. Lovely projects and non fiction just arent going to fill the gap. You need to look at things from another point of view.

Ann:

LK :

07 Nov 2014 8:40:36am

Sorry Ann, but I don't understand who is going to foot the bill for this Government wage if there are few tax payers? Where will the money come from? Will we expect the wealthy employed people to pay abundant tax to cover it? Given that the wealthy now do all they can to avoid tax, I hardly think they will be happy to increase what they pay. People of course are saying that new jobs will be created but no one is certain what those new jobs will be. It all sounds very vague and ill conceived to me. If we don't have enough taxpayers then how do we fund a welfare system?

whogoesthere:

07 Nov 2014 11:02:44am

True. Maybe I misunderstood your initial comment as it did not mention as in waht are 'supposed to do with their time if they have no work?.

If paid work as we know it largely diminishes then there will need to be some different way of people getting income to live. That is a huge issue, but a different one. My point was merely that you don't need a 'job' to have a filfilling life, you need income no doubt, but that's a different thing.

Stirrer:

06 Nov 2014 7:59:03pm

LK- your question reminds of of Zorba when he asked the English intellectual a similar simple question to which the Brit- replied 'I cannot answer questions like yours". 'Then what use are all your damned books' retorted Zorba.

I noticed none of the free market know all responded to post. But may I suggest your take a look at the Third Industrial Revolution: by Jeremy Rivkin?

AE:

LK:

07 Nov 2014 8:47:26am

You forget AE that there will be few jobs for the unemployed to find if technology takes over. And it won't only be the uneducated losing their jobs. Many who are educated and highly skilled will be out of work also (as we are currently seeing now). Not much point having an expensive education or training if there are no jobs available. This advance in technology will leave an abundance of workers and a very small supply of work to go around.

AE:

07 Nov 2014 10:44:01am

LKTechnology has been displacing and placing people since time immemorial.This is no different.Should we have banned email because it reduces the need for postmen?What the anti-technology crowd don't realise is that when you can get certain things for cheaper, like cars or clothes, that gives you more money to spend on others, like a holiday - and that that other industry will grow.And as for people being put out of work, then they'll just have to retrain - it was ever thus.

Stirrer:

07 Nov 2014 9:59:26am

AE-come back and talk to me when YOU have been algorithm-ised.The sign of intelligence is that you are always wondering - as LK does. Idiots are always dead sure about every damn thing they do in their life" Vasudev.

And yes, as death and taxes will always exist doctors, crematorium specialists, accountants and lawyers will also exist (thought with advances in cybernetics, genetic engineering and anti aging techniques 'death' may become a thing of the past in due course).

LK :

07 Nov 2014 1:29:39pm

I was giving some thought to the role of the Legal profession if technology takes over. For instance judges and criminal lawyers etc would no longer be needed as they could just feed the information of a case into a computer, wait for it to analyse the data, determine if guilty or not and what sentence befits the crime. Simple. No human interaction needed. How much of an accountant's job could become computerised? We already know that doctors to a large degree could become obsolete. Even the person who makes your coffee in the morning would be redundant. The possibilities are endless. Even policemen to a degree would be redundant as computers are used to solve crimes. Human problem solving and intelligence no longer required.

In regards to your list of new jobs, its a lovely new world if you enjoy IT and computers but hell if you're not that way inclined. Not everyone wants to fiddle with a machine all day. But I suppose they won't be given a choice.

Sea Monster :

Steve:

06 Nov 2014 4:31:45pm

I for one will celebrate when the last journalist closes her laptop.

She will be replaced by a computer that takes the emailed media release, keeps the first three paragraphs & deletes the rest, checks the topic against a list of likely other organisations for comment and then seeks counter comments, waits a set time for any response, then posts the resulting news story online.

Can't be any worse than what happens in 99% of news articles today. Cheaper, faster and totally unbiased.

JoeBloggs:

Bulldust:

07 Nov 2014 1:55:59pm

The point is they will seem less and less like work. Read an interesting book about the Dalai Lama ... he was asked what he considered his work day to be. He didn't understand the concept of "work" as intended by the journalist/author. By the end of the book the question looked quite silly, given the Dalai Lama's perspective. I digress, but perhaps it is relevant...

In the same way I think much work will evolve to become less onerous, shorter, and automated. Work of the future may look like play today, just as work today behind a PC doesn't look like real work to someone from 100 years ago.

But given that computer AI is inevitable, in terms of equalling human intelligence (in many respects - if not some creative ones, initially), it will also surpass just a little bit later (Moores's Law marches on relentlessly). Algorithms are also getting better by the year.

Sooner or later humans become less and less useful in the day-to-day production processes. That transition will imply less jobs. Sure we may still be in charge of the production decisions, but the amount of human input required will be very small, negligible eventually.

I am the last person to jump at "this time it is different" arguments. I am usually the one arguing that it isn't. In this case it is impossible to see how it isn't different. It doesn't even take many IT personnel to run systems for thousands in an organisation today. Why should that field suddenly explode as work becomes more automated?

Another thought ... to the degree we integrate with the technology, some decisions which send machines to do previously human work, may be seen as mangerial in nature. Truth is that the involvement will be negligible. Somewhat like a few clicks playing Farmville...

JoeBloggs:

I agree with all your points, they are all valid and likely to be part of our species future.

What will occur I would suggest is that such a future will enable the expansion of our human civilisation into the solar system and wider cosmos.

With a need of fewer humans to control and operate a system a greater number of systems can be used overall ensuring our species can spread out so to speak.

There will be a few initial hurdles, but it will work out well in the end...... in the same way that the land owners in the UK realised that it was more productive/profitable to farm sheep in Scotland than to have landless tenant populations of humans and moved them on to new lands (ie. Canada, Australia and NZ) during the clearances which opened up new frontiers for those peoples and in the end generated a larger global economic pie for all.

In time we will think nothing of orbital and asteroid mining settlements, and will simply accept their presence as part of the greater economic pie of this solar system.

Leftover:

Dapsta:

06 Nov 2014 11:33:45am

Given it costs between 3k-10k to process and hire a 457 worker, they still have to be paid an absolute minimum of 53k per year or the proven average for that profession, you must have been pretty dudd at your job....

So over people pinning every last one of their job problems on "foreign workers", when the factual numbers don't really support it.

Bosses don't "fire" domestic workers to hire foreign workers, the costs alone would be stupid. You would have to just suck at your job.

Aussie Sutra:

06 Nov 2014 12:15:29pm

Given that unskilled people are being brought in as 457 visa holders to do jobs like burger flipping and hotel maids, has it occurred to you that companies may have found a way around the cost? Think hard. If you still can't work out how they do it perhaps someone will explain it to you.

ynotbbb:

So over time there's roughly 2.5 million visa's issued allowing overseas people to work in Australia. Check with the ABS who issue the numbers each month on their website.

2.5 million visa's means that Centrelink are paying for all those eligable for the benefits. Being unemployed or underemployed does not necessarily mean you can get the dole.

Older Australians cannot get the dole since they need to meet the criteria set by Government and a lot of older unemployed Australian are then forced to sell all the excess property or cash in their superannuation to get any benefits from Centrelink.

Regional_King:

06 Nov 2014 12:30:02pm

Thing is perhaps the get someone who works more than your 40 hrs a week to secure the job, providing much better value than the local employee. With the employer and the employee undercutting the local who is abiding by the rules/law. I have seen employers abuse the rights of employees on 457's, but hey, better not rock the boat, or they are packed up and send back home to India or where ever they got shipped in from.

hairy nosed wombat:

06 Nov 2014 2:33:33pm

I dunno many folks get "sacked" to employ a foreign worker. What is happening is that we are having our jobs given away before we finish qualifying - both my wife and I have had it happen to us, and in our case the "employer" is the government. We are nearly at the end of specialist medical training, which has taken us each about a dozen years of hard slog. Between the two of us, we have frequently worked in excess of 150 hours a week. But in the time while we have been training, literally tens of thousands of foreign-trained doctors have come into the country. And it ain't like they are going to leave. Those jobs they have taken, they are effectively lost for local trainees for decades. My wife and I had been working in a rural hospital where we were planning on settling when we finished our training. But just in the last year they appointed 4 Indian-trained consultant-level doctors in my wife's department. That's it. Jobs are gone, and they are relatively young so those jobs are taken for decades. My wife was potentially only months from being senior enough to take one of those positions. They just didn't wait. And the people making the decisions were all from OS anyway, so it isn't like they necessarily have a particular interest in employing a local - indeed, they often see "locals" as a threat. It isn't like it has happened just once either, or just to us. It is happening to doctors all over the country right now. And if it is happening to us, I am sure it is happening in other industries and areas of training. I know people in other industries saying the same things. The longer the duration of your training, the more vulnerable you are.

I am sure there are issues with city folks not being prepared to move to the bush or taking failing to do the hard slog training in more rigorous fields like engineering. Being a country boy, I get particularly exasperated with how urbanised we have become, and the unwillingness of urban kids to entertain moving to the bush. But it is far from the whole story, and there are plenty of young folks who would be prepared to make the move especially if given a degree of security about job availability at the end of training.

We are also looking at people as individuals, when many aren't. The folks most likely to go bush are young families. That means thinking about a job for a partner and schools - and we have been ignoring these issues.

There is a whole generation of Australian students watching their jobs given away just in front of them at the moment, and it is causing enormous uncertainty. I mean, if you were 18 and about to start at University next year, would you do an engineering degree with a view to working in the mining industry? If I had kids at that stage, the truth is I would probably suggest don't do it. By the time they had finished their training, the jobs would all be gone in that sector. You only get one shot at Uni, and what if y

Rae:

06 Nov 2014 5:52:19pm

That is terrible and I wish you well.

I recently had a rural worker wait 4 days while we shuffled him back and forth over terrible tracks to get a broken bone set in Dubbo. At the time I despaired of our hospital system and I am pleased to hear of your dedication.

Come a really bad drought the Indians will go back home and we will be most grateful for your skills.

GRF:

06 Nov 2014 8:13:07pm

Anecdotal evidence suggests this practice is quite rife in the public health system; it is stacked with foreign doctors many of whom go out of their way to avoid employing native Australians when they are in decision making roles preferring instead to employ people of their own ethnic or religious background.

Caffettierra Moka:

07 Nov 2014 9:58:03am

Australians abandoned the 'country' as quickly as they could find a way out. The myth of the tall, bronzed Aussie at home in the saddle and the bush is just that, a myth. White Australia started out in an urban environment, with an urban population*, and just stayed that way. Probably the only thing that sent an overwhelming number of people into the scrub was the Gold Rush.

*of the 80 or so occupations found in the First Fleet, farmer was barely mentioned

AE:

06 Nov 2014 12:30:28pm

DapstaAgreed. My wife is in mining in HR and has to deal with the process. All the whingers who can't be bothered doing chemical engineering or mining engineering degrees and move out here to the sticks complain when a foreigner gets it.457s are a huge pain to get and a lot of hassle, companies would prefer to hire local but locals either don't have the degrees or won't move to where the jobs are (especially to out here in the sticks, where money is big and the cost of living very small - they don't know what they're missing).Cue now the responses saying "it's a company's job to put someone through uni....."

madmax:

06 Nov 2014 1:07:11pm

So ae your wife is in mining in HR and has to deal with the process

Maybe you could shed some light on all those kiwi's and second year holiday visa etc etc who seen to be all over mine sites and guess what most don't have engineering degrees or experience. I've been told they work for less.

AE:

06 Nov 2014 3:42:11pm

sdrawkcaBThe job market is just that - a market, where what you're selling is one hour of your Labor. The market giveth, and the market taketh away.Why shouldn't someone pay someone cheaper than you if they are happy with what they get?

sdrawkcaB:

hairy nosed wombat:

I kinda agree, and to some extent you can whine and moan all you like, but it is just economic reality. But at some point you have to ask what the point of the economy actually is.

And while it might be hard to get a working visa in Australia, you try getting a job just about anywhere else overseas. Truth is, it is easier to get a job and move to Australia than just about anywhere else on the planet.

hairy nosed wombat:

06 Nov 2014 3:24:31pm

A friend who was working in that field recently made an observation to me. Finding overseas staff for Australian jobs has of itself become an industry. A big one. Thousands of people make a living out of it. There are a lot of people in this industry who have a big vested interest in NOT employing locals. Because if they employ locals, then their own job is no longer needed. They need to perpetuate the line that they cannot get locals to do the job. I realise now I have seen exactly that phenomenon. It is self-perpetuating.

There are other reasons to bring in folks from overseas. Another mate in IT told me that in his workplace more than half the staff are Indian, and his bosses are mostly Indian. They rather employ someone from their background and training - often who they seem to have some connection to when they turn up. When they want to employ someone, they make the job sound a whole lot more senior than what it really is. They require qualifications and experience that no one locally is likely to have, and it is not surprising when they fail to find a suitable local applicant (especially in some areas where there might only be one or two businesses running a particular system). Then they bring in an "expert" from India. Who turns out to just be just another bloke like all the rest - often known to them. No special experience or qualifications at all, and who is then employed at a level far below what would have been expected from the job description and at an appropriately lower level of pay. My friend tells me often then has to train these people to do the job, although notionally they are his superiors. There is no reason some Australian kid, far more junior could not have been employed to do the job in the first place.

Dapsta:

06 Nov 2014 12:56:27pm

The migration act and the tax acts are the two largest pieces of legislation in Australia and the department of immigration is worse than centrelink.

It's easier and quicker to get a mortgage than to me get a 457 and most are refused because employers stuff it up, don't prove that there is a genuine need for the person at the business, don't prove that they will be paying the right amounts, providing the right conditions, or haven't made an effort to look for someone locally. They also have to prove that they are training local or pay a lump sum that goes to that purpose. Hence why it costs so much, takes so much time and Ian often contracted out to legal specialists at significant cost.

It's not just filling out a bunch of forms (I thought that before enlightening myself on the subject) and it would would be good if more people learnt about how it all works work before blaming all their misfortunes on it.

AE:

06 Nov 2014 12:32:52pm

DapstaExactly. This is something I'll be impressing heavily on my 6-week old kid as they grow up. You'd better get some pretty solid qualifications, or you'll go nowhere.Fair? Maybe not, but that's the economy we've got.It's not good enough for people to happily take the stuff they like from free trade, such as cheaper goods, and the internet but want to reject that which they feel threatened by. We just have to adjust.My kid will probably end up with a job I can't imagine in a field that doesn't even exist yet.

Paul M:

06 Nov 2014 2:33:54pm

You can have all the qualifications you want but it won't help when machines can do it everything better, faster and cheaper. I can't think of many jobs that will be safe. Sport is one but that's already a very competitive market.

AE:

floss:

06 Nov 2014 11:14:59pm

AE, I suggest that you teach your child music, for it makes learning mathematics easier. We will always need housing, and maths capability is needed to write the algorithms to drive the CNC machines which will build them in the future.

Besides which, it may be the entertainers who accumulate the greatest wealth in times to come. Some don't do too badly even now.

Even if we have computers composing music to suit our individual mood, somebody will have to write the algorithms for that. Humans crave novelty and I suspect if creativity is left entirely to the machines the output would become boring.

The 'next big thing' is always something unexpected, in any given field. Enjoy your time with your child.

DT:

Dean:

Journalists seem to be unable to prevent the steady decline of their existing business model of Papers as algorithims link people to news, bloggers and live pictures as it happens.

Twitter almost always beats journalists to stories, the pictures are more and varied and you can find a blogger to cater to your exact query rather than generalised hash.

The only journalists who survive are those who do real investigative journalism or offer insights any blogger off the street couldn't.

Re-hashing press releases is not journalism. But papers have cut back on costs so much that this is all they provide. Instead of gambling on content, they went for the long game of diminishing content being followed by ever-diminishing revenues.

Doctors will not be replaced like this, nor will engineers, architects or musicians. Even pilots and drivers will still be required, as the backup of human decisions will always be required.

But the article is spot on about journalists, their provision of information is no longer required.

Aussie Sutra:

06 Nov 2014 12:17:20pm

I don't agree. A real journalist offers a reliable account of events happening. That I cannot get from the blogosphere. The problem is that journalists en masse sold their souls to the big media companies who gave up real journalism and then stubbornly attempted to maintain their outdated system.

JoeBloggs:

06 Nov 2014 1:48:48pm

"A real journalist offers a reliable account of events happening"

ah nope, sorry.

A real journalist offers an account that accords with the bias of the news outlet that will pay them for the "story" they have created/embellished/sensationalised so that the news outlet will attract a readership sufficient to attract advertising revenues from business looking to sell/market their products/services.

At no point in history has the media been anything other than a vehicle for advertisers.

schneids:

07 Nov 2014 10:02:45am

Oh do tell us how The Pentagon Papers, the uncovering of the Watergate scandal and the work of every journalist working for the ABC and other public media in particular is nothing else but a vehicle for advertisers.

You have absolutely no idea of the role of journalism in a democratic society or the way it's worked until recently.

JoeBloggs:

The New York Times released the Pentagon Papers etc and made a lot of money selling their product by doing so

The NYT is known to have a liberal bias (also confirmed by the public editor of the NYT in 2004). Nixon of course was a republican.

The NYT Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Walter Duranty's work has been noted to be "unbalanced and uncritical, and that they [the NYT] far too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda" and calls have been made for the honour to be striped from him.

Do also note that from the mid 1950's advertorials have been a key component of the writers articles (particularly the fashion writers, who were assigned to promote particular department or specialty stores).

Which covers the NYT, pentagon papers etc quite well really.

As for any public media, they of course make no money from advertising, but never the less are subject to political control to ensure an appropriate bias is achieved (subtly of course).

Journalism has a role in society, being the propaganda mouth piece of particular groups/organisations/governments (and while making a few bucks for the shareholders).

Machiavelli's Cat:

06 Nov 2014 12:36:33pm

Drivers have been replaced and we could probably replace pilots (except it would be a PR nightmare). Anything that can be broken down into a discrete set of steps can be done by machine.Creative jobs are the ones that will survive, so long as you can get someone to pay for your creativity. This means some business models will need to change (hello music and newspaper industries).

madmax:

"Creative jobs are the ones that will survive, so long as you can get someone to pay for your creativity"

I feel I must point out one small but telling fault in your logic

get someone to pay for you creative work will be extremely difficult as lots and lot and lots of people will be trying to be creative and just a few people will have any money to pay for it. Its just not a good bet to put everything you got into being creative when so few will be winners and the trouble is coming in second makes you lose everything you got

mt_syd:

barsnax:

06 Nov 2014 2:25:37pm

Current technology has forced musicians and bands to go on the road to make money.

Look at the Rolling Stones for example. They sell out concerts all over the world but no one buys their CD's because it's old technology. People just download illegally, not everyone, but enough for Mick Jagger to have to stay on the road to pay for his lifestyle.

barsnax:

06 Nov 2014 3:56:08pm

As a side note I think it's fantastic that legends like the Stones and others are still on the road because they create genuine employment for all types of people. While technology improves the sound and lighting they still need people to lug in, set it up, pull it down and sell the merchandise.

Kerry:

06 Nov 2014 3:56:47pm

Creativity itself is being hollowed out. It is just too easy to copy and I don't just mean downloading "Game of Thrones".As an author/publisher I have experienced first hand that if you produce a good selling product (book) then there are the unscrupulous people that will photocopy and resell.In such cases do not expect action from the AFP. They will ignore complaints unless the sales are massive. What is the point of being creative if you are only making an opportunity for thieves with an indifferent government?

Trevor M:

Machiavelli's Cat:

06 Nov 2014 1:51:40pm

You may have noticed a resurgence in craft type industries over the last 10 to 20 years, particularly in foods eg. organic and specialist farming, bakeries, breweries. Don't whinge, just find something you are better than a machine at (or look after the machines). The only constant is change.

mt_syd:

06 Nov 2014 2:25:51pm

we are currently in the middle of a new trend which is towards downwards mobility. For the first time in decades children are more likely to get jobs that pay less and have lower status than their parents

Ann:

06 Nov 2014 1:47:43pm

Pilots are already mostly replaced - they still remain for human confidence.

I'd say doctors will remain but not so much because a machine can't diagnose and make treatment decisions, but because sometimes it requires judgement and personal interaction to squeeze all the information out of a sick person.

The sick person doesn't know what the relevant data they need to input to get a good diagnosis is. The computer would probably have to ask a lot more questions before it could jump to answers.

That being said, I have interacted with some doctors that were worse than a computer.

Kerry:

07 Nov 2014 10:17:05am

They don't need a doctor, just a suitably trained nurse to as the questions the doctor would askEventually the computer will react with the patient, diagnosing stress levels and any other changes as the questions are asked

the lollipop guild:

06 Nov 2014 1:16:56pm

I am not so sure you are right about doctors, engineers etc Dean.

I dont think there will be carte blanche replacement of these professions by robots/algorithms and it wont be soon. But progressively over a generation or 2 many purely binary tasks will be replaced by computers/robots. the receptionist at your local GP surgery will be digitised, patients will be pre-screened and tested by a computer and diverted into pathology or injections or other streams and a limited number of cases will eventually see a doctor for more intuitive human analysis.

similarly many of the mundane tasks of engineers or architects like drafting, ordering, quoting, programmed maintenance, QA/QC etc will be computerised.

none of us will actually drive a car in 20 or 30 years and transport generally is an industry that will be decimated in terms of employment. the new hospital in perth uses delivery robots for meals, laundry etc. Robot trucks and trains have already replaced many jobs in the iron ore industry and our blessed mining giants cant wait to replace the rest and pay the CEO a bonus.

on the other hand I disagree with Alan about creative sectors. who wants to listen to computer generated music? or read computer generated novels or watch movies based on computer generated scripts (although admittedly many of them seem to be based on pretty simple algorithms already!). even real journalism is at heart a creative enterprise which almost by definition, no algorithm can replace.

in fact, I would go so far as to say we are living through a major inflection point in history, where the supremacy of reason and rational (read binary) decision making is about to be usurped for the first time in 700 years by humanistic, creative thinking, which cant ever be replicated by algorithms, or at least not in the foreseeable future.

the most sought after and rewarded jobs of the future will be the imaginative, empathetic ones (dare I say feminine) where algorithms cant replace human creativity.

even high finance and investing jobs will be pretty worthless - algorithms have already started to replace underperforming and over-rated financiers. these are mostly pretty binary decision making processes out of whack with the reward structures - except for a few very smart rule breakers and boundary pushers (who are more akin to intellectual capital investors rather than managers anyway).

that doesnt have to mean rising inequality BTW. if the inequality gets too far out of balance because algorithms make too many people redundant and/or because QE and tax policy enriches too many at the expense of too few, then theoretically democracy will assert itself.

Failing all else - revolution! or will the rich elite by then hold the reins of a cyber army (drones) which has replaced the human military also......

Wheresmyspecs:

sdrawkcaB:

06 Nov 2014 2:53:19pm

Architects are being replaced by software.

An Architect is now 5 times more productive then his or her 1950's counterpart.There is a big push to coordinate CAD with builders co-ordination software. Once that happens the co-ordination part of the Architects (and builders) function will be lost to software.

An Architect will one day design on butter paper, feed it into a machine that will produce the first rough drafts to be corrected and then be re-fed into the machine for the next stage.

An architect will probably do the work of 10 at that stage and his right hand man, the draftsman will be extinct. This is significant as the better Architects were once draftsman - its a learning process yet to be bettered.

Once the chain is broken, a human Architect will be useless within two generations so one may as well transfer it all to a machine.

DS:

06 Nov 2014 11:14:49pm

I work in designing these algorithms. To be honest, they are far from taking over the world, at these stage. However, they are very good at automation - things like record keeping, searching, processes etc. IMHO, I wouldn't worry if you do a job that requires problem solving or creativity. I would be more so if the job is more of a middle-person or organisational communications job - there are lots of these, from HR to housing agents.

Tell your kids to study science, engineering and maths. May not find a job in Aus. But definitely will find work overseas and increasingly, the good opportunities are in these areas.

Tim Dean:

Great piece Alan. I'm pleased that more people are awakening to the implications of Big Data, artificial intelligence, robotics and 3D printing on the economy and society at large.

The 21st century will likely be one involving a seismic shift in the way we think about employment. The technologies above will destroy a great many jobs, but they will also create tremendous wealth. We thus have a choice: either allow the technology barons to reap that wealth and leave millions unemployed and in poverty; or find a way to distribute that wealth more evenly.

There are a few possible solutions. We could hike taxes on the tech barons, but that's not necessarily the most efficient solution. We could all work less - say a 3- or 4-day working week - and spread the remaining jobs around. We could implement a universal basic income. Or some combination of all three.

The problem is: there are no political parties confronting, let alone acknowledging, these issues yet. Most are tied to a very 20th (if not 19th) century understanding of economics, and many are lobbied by existing industries to maintain the status-quo, which seeks to resist change.

We need greater public awareness of these issues before they strike (i.e. before unemployment hits 10+%, which it likely will do in the next decade or so), and more political agitation on this front.

The 21st century will not be like the 20th. We need political parties that are sensitive to these new dynamics, not dinosaurs fighting 20th (or 19th) century ideological battles.

Ann:

06 Nov 2014 1:52:13pm

A shared ownership of the public resources that create all the wealth could work. Some kind of citizenship buy-in where you do your share of the work required nationally, and in return you draw your national wage.

If someone puts in more work than the minimum required of them, they get a higher wage, up to a certain cap. That allows driven people or talented people to be motivated to do better, but doesn't disenfranchise everyone else.

That's a nice idea except it interferes with decision-making, as if everything is owned by "the people" then poor decisions can be claimed to hurt everyone and not just the business operator.

Wildfire2013:

06 Nov 2014 3:34:32pm

Fair comment Tim. This piece from Alan really relates to the middle class squeeze phenomenon that is having quite a profound impact on the US economy. Some billionaires in the US see what is happening and are not entirely positive about it either. Of course, it's affecting most developed nations but in the US it's really having an impact. It's worth reading the various pieces that can be found on the web about middle class squeeze.

the yank:

"6,000 years for it to be attached to suitcases, and thus become really useful." you are kidding right?

Yes there are major changes happening but this has been going on for quite awhile.

In do agree with your comment that at least in the USA a major change for the worse happen under Reagan but then look at Australia during the same period and one sees a Labor government dragging Australia into the 20th century.

Technology I believe will be a two edged sword. It will give as well as take away. Education is the key to helping society adjust to these changes.

Machiavelli's Cat:

06 Nov 2014 2:06:49pm

Technology is always a two edged sword. The 1st industrial revolution was neither all good or all bad. I think we are in the beginnings of a 2nd industrial revolution. The 1st revolution scaled up the size of production, favouring factories and mass production. Now we are seeing the methods of production down scaling, becoming smaller and cheaper. If you take the example of the music industry, it is now possible for someone in a small room, with a laptop, to record, mix and distribute their creative works. An author can do the same. This kind of ability is now slowly moving in to the physical world, I could, potentially, design and produce a prototype of a physical object without leaving my home. The last 400 years has favoured the concentration of the means of production (including people), we are slowly turning that around and a witnessing the birth of the new cottage industries. May you live in interesting times.

sdrawkcaB:

06 Nov 2014 3:25:11pm

I am winding down for retirement and have researched it. Part of it is to consider oneself and that which provides most pleasure and contentment.

Consequently, I have started to shift away from technology. There was a beer advert not that long ago that went on about hands - handmade, handover, hand me a spanner, etc., etc. and its quite right. The greatest pleasure for me is the use of hands and to hold aloft that which I have done which means hand made, hand tools, hand drawn (art), calculation by hand (slide rule, standard maths table), etc.

I closed off Excel VBA earlier this year and will probably never run it again. My phone plan ran out in February and I do not miss it. My 30 year old dining table is currently being restored by me, have hand tools used in the repair of its timber jointing, will be hand filled, be hand sanded to get into all nooks and crannies, hand varnished, and my hands will run over it during its final inspection as I appreciably nod to myself for a job well done. It will last at least another 30 years.

This 2nd revolution as you put it is about removing the creative input and loving attention of hands and in some cases minds. I see significant numbers of humans becoming unfulfilled zombies. Hopefully the 'interesting times' occur after I die.

JoeBloggs:

07 Nov 2014 2:57:16pm

"Hopefully the 'interesting times' occur after I die."

With the advances in quantum computing, nano technologies with medical applications, genetic engineering, cybernetics and break throughs in understanding how to reverse aging caused by DNA failure/wearing out over time, you may not have that 'luxury' of missing the interesting time to come.

ps. you might even get to enjoy a commercially provided tourist trip around the rings of Saturn in time, .....I hear they are mighty pretty this time of year.

TheDumbMany:

06 Nov 2014 11:50:46am

Good article thanks Alan, this subject is a bit of a Voldemort for many. When I began work, the workplace was full of clerks, clerical assistants and book keepers etc. Good quality handwriting was essential and there were no computers as such, though some massive machines were in development, we who needed to perform advanced math used a slide rule and other now vintage artifacts.Now the workplace is full of coders, hackers, crackers, muxers, programmers and analysts, math prodigies and savants are the new whiz kids. Robotics and autonomous equipment are spreading quickly. I can tell you the mining and other companies are big fans, as there are no Unions blackmailing and standing over them and no gargantuan and expensive OHS compliance responsibilities. Duty of care is taken care of by engineers and coders.The new face is evolutionary algorithms, designed to self learn and seek the optimum solution, over and over again, with the new high priests sweating away to make sure the machine does not get too carried away with itself.Don't worry too much, the wheel will turn, energy security looms as a major threat and a possible endarkement will follow, the Net will crash sooner or later when savaged by either power supply loss or an evolutionary software virus, sent by some stupid terrorist. Then we will once more get out pour pens and pencils to administrate human and business affairs.Mind you if Ms Milne gets her way and we stop coal too early, things will hasten to their natural conclusion much earlier. One benefit will be not having to listen to the Green stupidity any longer, no net, no social media, no news unless you crank up that old radio.

awake:

06 Nov 2014 11:51:51am

I remember a little algorithm book I had in high school. Do schools still use them? They would be in all the calculators now I guess.

All our information for free eh? Well what sort of administration would be required to issue invoices and demand payment for the information? There is a new industry waiting - beats building cars no-one wants.

Wish I was 18 again and I would have a go. Come on you Aussies kids get going.

NonCuratRex:

06 Nov 2014 3:44:26pm

Think you meant a book of LOGARITHMS. (Or maybe anagrams of long words)...

And the return to you for your information comes bundled with the fine print about the things you sign up for at the time you supply the information. It only seems to be a one sided deal, whereby you pass over information and the big friendly company supplies something you did not think you could wait for.

bozo25:

06 Nov 2014 11:52:41am

Alan,

Spot on, but nothing new really. Ideas make money. It's just that the internet and supercomputers have made it possible to develop and apply the idea. Then lawyers help you patent the idea, and you need venture capital or a partner to back you. Algorithms are just the mathematics which describe and apply the idea.

I went through this process over a decade ago. I am a retired scientist who 'had this great idea', and got the work published in a US journal. As usual, no interest in OZ...all too hard for us here. The backing came from the business arm of a US university. So I spent 3 years over there working with them to develop and market the work. Now, having retired, I can live on handsome royalities from licensing the idea, or algorithm, to users. If we didn't have algorithms, we'd still be living in trees. They are just ideas, the result of (usually) intelligent thought.

fredn:

06 Nov 2014 1:37:32pm

"why do we pay $100 to get a tax return processed"

Because the rent-seekers at the high income end of the population have lobbied successive governments so well that the tax act is about a metre thick, and chock-full of concessions and exemptions, write-offs and loop-holes that only an expert on tax can have any idea of how to do it.

But the on-line ATO version is free and effective if you have no concessions, so it ain't all bad.

And we need income tax because GST only would be massively unfair to most of the population, and skew the accretion of wealth to the wealthy even more than it is now.

And if you are happy with elves making your shoes, why robots doing the gardening. Shouldn't you leave that to the fairies at the bottom of your garden? I certainly do.

Peter the Lawyer:

06 Nov 2014 2:15:54pm

The complexities of the Income Tax legislation are not really due so much to concessions, but to successive governments trying to plug loopholes that clever people like me have found. When governments plug such holes they never do it with simple law, but with a plethora of provisions that try to cover every possible outcome.

That is why if they get rid of negative gearing on real estate, the law will become far more complex. At the moment there is one provision relating to negative gearing deductions and that is a general provision that covers the vast majpority of deductions, ie the deduction for expenditure incurred in making assessable income.

JoeBloggs:

06 Nov 2014 2:03:31pm

dan.

you ask a fair question (why do we pay $100 to get a tax return processed).

you pay $100 because you are too lazy/uninterested to spend years at university, and in work post university, to gain the knowledge necessary to enable you to correctly read, interpret and apply the particular tax legislation to your particular circumstances.

plus the accountant will chuck in $300 worth of "other work related expenses" which will on average generate an additional tax refund (or reduction in tax payable) worth about $100, which ensures you don't pay a cent in reality.

you pay income tax because in provides a more equitable outcome for lower paid people than if we only paid (more) GST.

fortunately someone will need to service the robots to remove the dirt from their servos after doing said gardening, so the job will only change from one occupation (gardening) to another (robot servicing).

sdrawkcaB:

A system can easily be devised where tax returns are not needed fro the average wage and salary earner.

The actual answer you were searching for is 30% of us are needed to satisfy all wants. Another 40% for all needs which means the rest have concocted employment - about 25% of us.

Whilst some accountants are in the needs category, some are also employed to satisfy the tasks that have no real meaning other then that being invented by government.Accountants fall into the same category of those training providers that are involved in providing mind numbing professional development training or the OH&S training that is required annually but really only need be done once in a lifetime.

JoeBloggs:

07 Nov 2014 9:14:41am

SdrawkcaB,

That is quite true. I understand that in NZ the average wage earner doesn't need to file a tax return as the system does it for them automatically. But then they don't get to claim any expenses (and so pay more tax that we do) and all types of income (ie. Interest Received) are taxed at source which ensures all tax revenues are appropriately collected.

You could attempt to do the same here, though the howls of complaint from those wage/salary earners who would dip out on the tax savings relating to expenses currently claimed might just drown out the calls for a simplified automated tax system.

As for the rest of your post it can be summed up quickly. "Death and Taxes", two constants in life. Which of course will ensure undertakers and accountants (and tax lawyers) will always be in demand.

ps. every business needs to know how it is performing, and what its financial position is, in order to be able to make appropriately informed management decisions. Simple isn't it.

John Conner:

06 Nov 2014 4:16:08pm

Surely robots will service the robots.

If we project forward and skip the interesting middle, in a society where most jobs are done by robots we will need a revolutionary model of wealth distribution. Otherwise there will be no consumers for all those 3d printer shoes. It sounds a lot like that utopia we keep on hearing about, just around the corner.

PeterWalker:

06 Nov 2014 2:09:47pm

The tax department has self driving tax pack Just fill in the blanks If you follow it and look for the info it prompts you get a better result than an accountant that follows a Tax company prompt on his computer

corsair72:

06 Nov 2014 4:31:54pm

Both major parties have comissioned papers on the tax systems. In both of these reports it was recommended to do away with personal tax returns, countries such as the UK don't require people to lodge tax returns. It makes you wonder why both major parties have ignored this advice by experts, or more correctly how much money did they take from lobby groups to not act upon these recommendations

JoeBloggs:

07 Nov 2014 9:25:14am

the howls of complaint from taxpayers who will stand to lose out on their ability to claim expenses as a deduction against their salary/wage income currently is sufficiently loud to ensure that an automated and simplified salary/wage tax return system is not implemented.

LK :

06 Nov 2014 1:31:20pm

If hardly anyone is left working, then who is going to financially support the mass unemployed? If the answer is no one, then people will starve, crime will increase and we will have anarchy on our hands.

corsair72:

06 Nov 2014 4:26:05pm

We have been through this exact situation before when we shifted from agrarian to industrial society, Society did not collapse and there was no anarchy on peoples hands, The response was families became smaller and life expectancies got longer and by and large peoples lifes got better with infrastructure such as waterworks and sewage being built. The new digital age will produce a similar result as the last time. Families will get smaller (which is a good thing in this overpopulated world) and technology will bring about improvements to our life for example, 3D printing of replacement body parts. yes some people in the transition will be left behind but that is always the case and it will be something we as a society will need to manage during the transition.

Not Such a Golden Oldie:

06 Nov 2014 5:05:42pm

I like your optimism corsair72, at least I hope it is optimism and not just a blind belief in history repeating itself. Since we know about the pain and misery which accompanied the shift from agrarian to industrial society (as well as the benefits that occurred), do you think we will be able to look after the "losers" next time round, or will they just be leaners, whom we should not care about?

corsair72:

06 Nov 2014 5:24:41pm

Those left behind will, given past evidence will represent one to two generations. It will be societies responsibility to support these people but it will not be masses as feared by LK. When the shift from agrarian society happened large families of seven upwards were the norm. Given that our family size is around the four mark there will not be the graet unemployed masses we saw in the last shift of technology. Once family sizes reduce after a couple of generations then things will stabalise. I understand that there will be losers but humanity moves forward not backwards and the future holds the key of fixing up the negative aspects that the industrial era brought.

Not Such a Golden Oldie:

06 Nov 2014 5:55:59pm

I still like your optimism corsair72, it's your certainty that history will repeat itself that scares me. We can always learn from history, but as for it repeating itself in the same way, that is not how I read history, there is usually a specific twist to it that differs from the past.As for the idea that the sacrifice of a couple of generations in the long march of history is ok, I again have some qualms. It's not only the sins of the fathers that carry on for 7 generations, it is also the misfortunes of the father that carry on for 7 generations (at least).I certainly agree with you about smaller family sizes and population decrease in the longer run, however that will also have an economic effect in reducing the overall growth rate. You are correct about the reduction of family sizes in the long run, but we have still managed to increase the overall size of the human population of planet earth, so in that respect I hope that history does not repeat itself.It is my belief that mankind needs to re-invent itself periodically, not just blindly follow history. Sometimes new problems require new solutions.

JoeBloggs:

07 Nov 2014 3:02:45pm

Corsair72.

Given sufficient time I would suggest the greatest problem regarding the human population and breeding rates will be the fact that our species will have colonised such a large part of the solar system (or cosmos) that our population becomes so diffuse as to make finding a mate/breeding partner difficult.

Perhaps it will become a semi automated industrialised process where insemination occurs remotely and gestation occurs in a series of commercially operated synthetic womb analogue organs?

jn:

Aussie Sutra:

06 Nov 2014 12:14:03pm

Google's algorithms suck big time. They don't have a clue. You'd think they would, but they are so painfully simplistic it gives me a headache to think about it. So I'd say algorithms have a way to go, unless all the people who know how to do "stuff" die off and just leave behind a bunch of geeks who think that because they can write and implement an algorithm they suddenly also have the skill set to understand how to make the algorithm valuable. We are far away from that right now.

The market response to the mechanisation of everything is to seek valuable human input, personalisation and the human touch. However, this still means that we are looking at a future where there won't be all that much work for unskilled people. I note that Australia is very much in a hurry to flood the nation with as many unskilled people in the form of 457 visa holders and the rush to a larger population, just as the world may be waking up to the fact that a high quality of life is an outcome of small populations, not large ones.

DS:

06 Nov 2014 11:44:55pm

Agree, but not all of us do it for the money. Although I am paid a decent wage and the good thing is that are many opportunities to increase my wealth and many do not require me working for the captial owners.

neil:

06 Nov 2014 12:43:19pm

In engineering computers are taking over more decision making processes every year. First it was just the drafting, then stress calculations but now how a product interacts with the consumer can be simulated with an algorithm before the product has even been made. The smoothness of a gear change in a car, the feel of a light switch, the intuitiveness of a smart phone OS, a buildings ventilation and heating or the comfort of an airline seat can be assessed and adjusted without human involvement.

An effect of this is engineering wages have dropped by 20% in real terms over the past decade, I suspect non management engineers with become extinct over the next twenty years. Only marketers and program managers will be required to tell the computers what the product must do.

neil:

Lee eel:

07 Nov 2014 10:39:51am

Humans are not good at maintaining concentration on safety critical activities. Malpractice claims against doctors are so high because humans make stupid errors. The robots don't need to be perfect, they just need to be better. Humans have set the bar pretty low.

JEFFL:

06 Nov 2014 12:56:15pm

I don't agree. The author doesn't understand much about algorithms. It doesn't take our jobs, it creates jobs.

- Automation frees up our time to think of more interesting and important problems.- Software, compilers, telecommunications ... they all work based on algorithms and they create more jobs, not stealing jobs. - The problem is that we choose to do easy work (by trying not to understand algorithms) and scared that algorithms take our jobs.

The problem is being at the top is a privilege but also a lot of pressure to maintain the position. Developing countries eventually will catch up and do things we can do today, just as what happened with the car industry. Now, developed countries have to build submarine, spacecrafts and satellites.

Developed countries design new algorithms and tools. Government, wake up and support R&D, scientists and high-tech businesses, not cutting the fund. That's the only way to lead forward!!!

JEFFL:

06 Nov 2014 5:11:29pm

"for example, my local supermarket employs many fewer young people at the checkout now because they have installed automated self serve check outs"You sound like this is a bad thing. Do you think there're more and more young people who dream to work at the check out counter?Don't get me wrong, i appreciate the job but you can't do it years after years, you have to move on!

JEFFL:

07 Nov 2014 12:33:59pm

"Look there goes the point you missed, so what about the next group of kids coming along looking for a first time job?"There you go. You also mean it, it's for next group of kids looking for FIRST time job. The machines can't replace us of course. There'll always be cases where we're required. But 95% of the time, the machine can handle it.

I think as a society, we're failing if there're MORE and MORE kids want to just stay and work at the counter and say to themselves "This is enough".

I'm software coder. Off course, i'll try my best to move on, keep learning new things. I'll be replaced by some younger kid who played with computers when he was 5-10 years old. But that's how we advance as a whole. The moment you think it's enough, you're already be replaced by someone in China! I may succeed I may fail.

It's up to you ... different times, people make different tools. If you choose to keep making hammer and chisel, you've got to choose to make things China can't make it!! No choice!! Living in the first class is not easy.

I hope the government would wake up and stop relying on our natural resources.

JoeBloggs:

06 Nov 2014 2:14:30pm

I'm sure someone once would have said that:- computers were going to put us all out of work, - steam trains were going to put us all out of work, - wooden wheels were going to put us all out of work- etc

Honestly I don't mind that I don't need a fletcher, a farrier, or a reaper in my life to ensure I have food and transport.

I'm quite happy with a abattoir worker, a mechanic and a combine harvester operator.

(to be replace with in time by a industrial vat monitor, a 3D printing technician and a vertical hydroponic farmer)

mt_syd:

06 Nov 2014 2:32:35pm

In the past it is true that as technology has changed and improved the economy has created new jobs to replace the old.

There is no evidence that this is happening now, in fact the opposite is the case. The evidence shows that the middle class is shrinking, and that people are now more likely to experience downward mobility compared to their parents than the reverse.

The other problem with your argument Joe, is that the massive historical technological shifts that you mention were not accompanied by a smooth transition for the people made redundant. People were thrown on the scrapheap.

neil:

06 Nov 2014 10:37:34pm

JEFFL, you seem to believe that the average person can achieve anything they choose, this is leftist PC BS. The average person struggles to tie their own shoe laces, they are a danger controlling a car and have no hope of ever understanding the complexities of algorithms. When a robot can lay a brick a bricklayer cannot become a scientist, he is just too dumb, so he has no hope of re-employment.

The reality of humanity is 25% of people do everything, 25% can survive on their own and the remaining 50% have no chance of survival out side the infrastructure provided by the first 25%. And if we take away their jobs because they are hopelessly incompetent, which they are, and replace them with autonomous robots what are they going to do? Social anarchy is the inevitable result. This is the price of keeping stupid people alive because we feel a responsibility.

Lee eel:

07 Nov 2014 10:43:36am

It creates jobs sure, but not nearly enough for people to fill from the replaced jobs. Even given the huge advances in technology since the industrial revolution, most people are employed in a job that existed in some form then.

Jerry:

I find it somewhat scary that a prominent Financial journalist, ex stockbroker and financial advisor ha only just discovered algorithms. What analytical methods has Alan been using all these years?

On the other had, automation and automated production is rapidly changing the amount of labour required to deliver what the world desires.Until now the befits of production have been distributed according to investment input and labour input. (including the labour of generating new ideas and methods.) In the future world proportionately less labour input will be required, meaning that the main mechanism for the distribution of benefit across society will be truncated. The mechanism for maintaining a fair and civil society will be rapidly undermined.

This will be a major challenge to overcome. An economic revolution is required.

A pocketful of wry:

"I find it somewhat scary that a prominent Financial journalist, ex stockbroker and financial advisor has only just discovered algorithms. What analytical methods has Alan been using all these years?"

Excellent question. I suspect he's mostly adopted the standard methods employed by the "industry" of examining the entrails of sacrificed small animals when an air of faux stability permeates the room, and switches to following any stampede either entering or exiting a door when there's any form of electricity in the air. It isn't necessary to utilise algorithms for that - simple instruction from a moderately lucid herd animal combined with a few lessons in critical thinking from any moss or lichen willing to part with its knowledge pretty much gives you the tools to do the job.

Algorithms for our so-called financial wizards are merely analogous to putting trousers on clowns - doing it makes them look smarter, and supplies them with more gravitas than their own unaided efforts would otherwise produce.

Peter the Lawyer:

06 Nov 2014 1:09:07pm

The fact that "middle class jobs" are better paid is not a result of those jobs requiring more decisions. A bus driver probably makes far more decisions in a day than a doctor. It actually rests on the kind of decisions that are made and the value that society puts on those decisions.

Like everything else it all about adding value. Many people in the professions do more than just plod away at their profession. My new neighbour is an ex dentist who invented some process or device that makes dental work more efficient. It is elling all over the world and allowed him to spend a couple of million on a new apartment.

WIll the onward march of the algorithm stop such things? No I think it will assist those who think of new ways of doing things oe new products.

Jimmy Necktie:

06 Nov 2014 3:08:20pm

"It actually rests on the kind of decisions that are made and the value that society puts on those decisions."

Or, the way I look at it, how much a mistake will cost. I almost cost our small company $450K last year by quoting for one material when the client actually wanted a similar but 3x cost material. But I caught it, that's what I'm paid for.

Happy Falang:

Happy Falang:

06 Nov 2014 7:58:24pm

Paid to catch your own mistakes, sorry to break this to you Necktie, I would gather your English or from the UK so your employer would of taken this in to account and would check all your work. I think you need to revisit your job description. If however I'm wrong and you do get paid to catch your own mistakes could you send me out an application.

MightyFish:

06 Nov 2014 1:29:49pm

We should smash up those terrible knitting frames too. Until they came along we could make a good living making socks.

But, of course, those people who made the socks the old way eventually found other things to do. It was not comfortable but, eventually, because there was more productivity the standard of living was increased.

Standing in the way of using new technologies to do things more competitively rarely turns out well for those doing the standing.

floss:

I can still make the socks the old way, by hand, using four double-ended knitting needles. In fact, I am currently making a mini version to hang on the Christmas tree as ornaments.

The Industrial Revolution allowed us to make more similar products faster, by using an external energy source to drive the machines. Then the goods had to be transported to the point of sale. Providing for our basic needs became a convoluted process, allowing extra profits to be extracted along the way.

But if work becomes available only for the privileged few, there will be less money available to purchase the excess goods produced. The economies of scale will no longer apply, warehouses and transportation will be reduced and needed goods more difficult to obtain in a timely manner.

Now there's a thought! The old people with the craft skills could teach younger people those skills, just as humanity has always done. And the learned helplessness of our modern society could be overcome.

Edward:

I marvel at the way the humble algorithm is being used nowadays. Yes, they can be good. But they have their faults.

Have you ever tried to argue with an algorithm? Even if you're 100% sure you're right about something an algorithm will tell you that you're wrong and wont enter into discussion or debate.

Algorithms have no emotion. You can spend fifteen minutes talking to a computer on the phone trying to get something sorted out and if it can't deal with the issue it will just hang up on you telling you to call during business hours.

And algorithms are used to make all those annoying robo-calls. The phone rings and you get to it just before the answering machine kicks in and you find yourself either on hold or being hung up on. And robo-polls are even worse because you can't tell them to bugger off. Even if you hang up on them they continue to chatter away leaving the phone line engagedso you can't use it.

So, algorithms can be used for good. But sometimes they can just be down right annoying. Give me a human ahead of a computer any day. And if you're a polly don't robo-call me because that will clinch your position as last on the ballot paper.

Angry Weasel:

06 Nov 2014 1:48:21pm

The key term Mr Alan Kohler should have understood is REDUCTIONISM!

There are levels of decision making, and levels of algorithmic solutions. Perhaps more to the point is the position, power and influence, of people using algorithms as tools in their decision making, NOT the technical content of algorithms themselves. Virtually anyone can learn to use and apply a workable algorithm in business providing he employs trained men or women who can produce those algorithms.

REDUCTIONISM is the practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon (like disappearance of middle class jobs) in terms of things that are held to represent a more fundamental level (algorithms, technology) especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.A classical example of Reductionist thinking is when he says:

What's going on is that algorithms are replacing middle-class jobs. The key differentiator in wage levels is the ability, and the power, to make decisions - to assess data using our senses and draw conclusions from them. The more decisions you make, the more you get paid.

Tho one who uses his senses, assesses the data, and draws conclusions is NOT necessarily the same person who makes the final decision. The person is more likely to be a hired employee!

Besides, the article is poorly edited since it repeats itself on the same point by usage of different wording (and supporting descriptions) without adding anything new to the main argument (the fatal power of decision-making algorithms to take away jobs).

Swoosh:

06 Nov 2014 2:02:10pm

Alan generally I like your articles but geeze this one is just terrible, I couldn't get past the first two paragraphs..

"The wheel was invented long ago but it took more than 6,000 years"I can only surmise this was a stab at humour. Obviously there were chariots in ancient Roman times, not to mention the wheel concept being used in cogs on early machine (some in ancient Roman times also). There are too many examples I won't go on.

"For more than a thousand years algorithms existed purely in the arcane toolkits of mathematicians"Not quite. Mathematicians might have been some of the very few people who understood the algorithms, but for thousands of years algorithms were used to complete engineering marvels, sending secret messages (basic cryptography), dividing land, food management and more.

I agree there are huge implications to society as we begin to automate ('robotise') more and more, particularly for low skilled/low intelligence workers but please, stick to the finance news mate.

anote:

06 Nov 2014 2:28:21pm

"the democratisation of decision-making in the 20th century" I do not like the use of the term democratisation as used in relation to technology these days. Sure people can make something they say more accessible, sort of, but it does not have to be listened to and technology can be used to curb democracy as well. Democracy is political not technological.

Two other effects of what Kohler has written is a dumbing down and surrender to market economics as currently practiced.

Something can be done but the mix of capitulation, evolution and revolution has yet to be determined.

keith:

Corsair72:

06 Nov 2014 2:51:48pm

We have been through this change before when we shifted from an agrarian to an industrial society back in the 17/1800's. this vastly changed society as people moved form country to city to take up jobs their parents couldn't of imagined could of existed. Many people suffered as they were no longer "of use" to this new kind of society and the very fabric of society changed. But this change improved the quality of our lives and society adjusted, primarily by having smaller families. In this new change to a digital era there will be societal upheaval, but like before we will adjust. The trick is twofold, to look afterthose people who cannot transition to this new world and unlike the previous change in eras, we share the benefits with the rest of the world so we dont see the such a gulf between sustainable western population numbers and overpopulated third world countries.

mt_syd:

06 Nov 2014 3:15:55pm

the shift from an agrarian to industrial economy did not result in any significant redistribution of wealth. The people who owned 90% of the wealth remained the same but the nature of their assets changed (from land to manufacturing capital)

two things created the big middle class

the two world wars - which destroyed the wealth of the top few percent

universal suffrage - the vote for everyone, not just those who owned property

It looks like we are headed back to a society where wealth is very highly concentrated in the hands of the top few percent, and where democracy is not so important because all the major players are utterly dependent on support from the top end of town

John Forbes:

The distribution of wealth & finite resources in an ever changing world remains beyond any political will or resolve!

It is our human economic system of wealth inequality that has to be dealt with but HOW?

Certainly Australian politicians are NOT up to the task at all! With a Prime Minister who disputes Global Warming how on earth can this government tackle anything like the INTERNET & INFORMATION FREEDOM or TRADING ???

Well beyond anyone really! A human conundrum that if NOT at least talked about,debated & at least tackled will lead to some HORRIBLE social problems!

JoeBloggs:

07 Nov 2014 3:12:13pm

Anote.

Wrong.

Resources are for all intensive purposes infinite.

You are looking for resources in the wrong direction... you keep looking down at your feet for them...when they are in fact floating right above your head (primarily in the asteroid belt, and of course also further afield).

Everything we could ever need is just spinning away merely above us, as it has done for billions of years now.

Will our species be the one that finally reaches out to attain them? That is the only question.

JoeBloggs:

07 Nov 2014 3:08:40pm

Jimmy,

there are sufficient resources (as space) in our solar system in the asteroid belt to support a human population the trillions, .... let alone the resources within this one particular galaxy of billions of star systems (which is just one of billions of galaxies in the observable portion of this one universe).

resources are in effect infinite, so is space..... we just need to get out there and get them (hopefully before the next snowball from space causes yet another extinction level event on Earth).

JoeBloggs:

You ask how to deal with our human economic system and wealth inequality when we have a system based on finite resources.

The answer is incredibly simple.

It is literally staring at you in the face every time you look up.

We simply change the formula from one which is based on "finite" resources to one based on "near infinite" resources.

There are sufficient resources in the asteroid belt to support a human population living in orbital settlements numbering in the trillions.

and before we can out grow those resources we will have sufficient time to determine how to attain the ability to operate FTL systems that will provide us with the ability to utilise the resources of the billions of star systems in our local galaxy enabling a human population of billions of trillions to exists, and before those resources are used up we will have sufficient time to attain the ability to colonise other galaxies and access the billions of other galaxies enabling a population of billions of billions of trillions of humans to exist, ..... and then there are no doubt (at least according to current scientific opinion) an infinity of other universes to explore, and exploit.

lilly:

06 Nov 2014 3:54:26pm

One wonders whether the author of this article only just discovered the word algorithm in the dictionary and was itching to use it more often. Speaking as a Software Engineer with some 16 years experience at creating "algorithms", I find it rather amusing.

I think at some stage there is going to be a backlash against the so called big data and more generally against technology. Europe has gone someway towards protecting its citizens against its dangers however the tendency is to slowly take away our rights to privacy by monitoring everything we do in the name of efficient law enforcement - make the authorities jobs easier is the catch phrase everytime they want to erode our rights. The new data retention laws are an example of this.

We need to ask ourselves what we want and the government should provide that. This is what democracy is about - the people!!! What level of privacy are we willing to give up to protect ourselves? What level of privacy are we willing to give up to allow businesses to try and sell us stuff? These decisions should be made in the interests of the people - not in the interests of the government or big business.

Of course, before we can do this, we need to reform our political system and turn it into something that actually represents us.

Ab absurdum:

The consumer! If everyone is out of work there will be no one to buy all the wonderful things the algorithms produce.

A self limiting problem.

But in the mean time - hang on to your hat.

Reagan and Thatcher were so simple minded! But the everyday economists and politicians more so. They believed them! I am reminded of the old saying that for every complex problem there is a simple solution - which is inevitably wrong.

Bruce:

06 Nov 2014 4:40:38pm

There are any number of reasons to expect that the supply side of our future is going to be completely different from that of our past, say 40, years.

We have guzzled the easily won stuff and turned it into a nasty stack of delayed consequences whose shittin is now coming home to roost. Providing as much for many more people from a gutted resource base has no ring of long term security about it. And the Political Leverage issues all this 'scarcity' throws up will crush one hell of a lot of nuts along the way.

Almost certainly, the Status Quo will shift rather brutally.

If we are too silly to avoid it, we will probably fall into a repetition of history again - about 15th Century history probably, with the masses unwashed and the mighty spending everything on fripperies or on holding their seats at the high table of privilege. Jobs as we know them, and security for ordinary people will be a pipedream.

If we are able to avoid it, jobs as we know them will still be a thing of the past.

We will not 'make' remotely as much goods and services per capita in leading countries as we do now. We will not have the wherewithal to fund wizards of this or that playing silly buggers with money or property or to build mini-palaces for people who rich people patronise just because they have the hide to charge them so much.

'Equity of contribution' will see virtually everyone contributing to the happiness of themselves and others, but at a much lower true cost than the fallacy of Political-Economic Modernity costs. This means we will all work but that very many of us will not have jobs as we know them now, and those that still do will have much more support than they get now.

In truth, 'jobs' have always been a terrible idea. They limit the imagination of people to being 'workers' rather than encourage them to be as wonderful as they are able to be.

They are a device of Politics and of Political Economics which are antithetical to 'society'. In a good future, people will contribute much more than labour and skills - they will contribute their humanity to the collective humanity.

JessC:

06 Nov 2014 5:49:39pm

"we will probably fall into a repetition of history again - about 15th Century history probably, with the masses unwashed and the mighty spending everything on fripperies or on holding their seats at the high table of privilege"

Fripperies .... on my way home this afternoon my attention was drawn to the number of vans showing the occupation of the driver..... all probably self-employed, which is great, but dog walking service, de-clutterer, party catering, etc.

Obviously there must be a lot of super rich and lazy people around in order for these businesses to flourish, but like you I truly wonder what jobs will be open to us in future.

DangerMouse:

GrumpiSkeptic:

06 Nov 2014 5:02:34pm

Yes indeed...Good algorithms, or good data analytical tools will take the sweats and tears away from a tedious task. However, I doubt that humans can be entirely replaced. Please allow me to elaborate...

I recall an incident at the mine planning office. One of the planning engineers nearly fell out of his chair as he was getting really uber excited. He ran to the geologists next door and yelled: "We are in the money this time !"

We all followed him to his office. He pointed at his computer screen which has a bright highlighted zone. That colour means an extremely high grade ore is located. We asked him to zoom in...And there it was, over one thousand grams per tonne. Mind you, then we were mining 3-4 grams per tonne, and it was considered good grade! So it was going to be champagne all round? Being ever such a grumpy chap myself, I am also known to be less liable to get excited about things. So I asked him to show us the data behind it. Yes, it was high alright.

Still not satisfied, I asked him to show me the equation he used for the data analysis. All good there. But then, being a computer programmer, I have eyes for tiny mistakes one usually made, that includes myself. Then after some careful scanning, and there it was, a double counting recursive loop. The mistake was made worse by him entering a high number.

So instead of rushing to the director and demand for an instant promotion and cop a spanking for his careless mistakes, he settled down and was happy with a mere 33 grams per tonne of gold.

My conclusion? No computers and cutest algorithms can match a cool, calm human brain. But then again, the GFC was a creation of cute algorithms and sneaky humans. What about those new cars packed to the brim with technologies? It is more like a computer with wheels. That is one of the reasons the new Land Cruiser 200 series is not selling well because people are scared of the technology. I am one of them !

Sudo nim:

Mathematics is like sex: it is not mentioned in polite company, but if we stopped doing it then it would destroy civilisation.

Mathematics is the secret language of civilisation.

This hasn't changed for several thousand years.

When the Egyptians built the pyramids, when the Roman invented percentages to communicate tax requirements, when the longbows were pointed over the enemies' heads, when the British Empire dominated the world trade because of advances in navigation, they used maths.

Today, mathematics is crucial.

Mathematics underlies the statistical analysis needed for evidence based medicine and optimal decisions about cancer treatment.

Mathematics is the language used to decide the economic question of who has access to what resources, inside your bank's computer.

Mathematics is as amoral as gravity: mathematics was used when analysing data to close Holden, despite mathematics being used designing V8 that don't shatter themselves.

Algorithms are just an application of maths. Hence, tell your children to do the hardest maths they can handle. When they ask "Sir, when are we ever going to use this stuff?", give them the nasty answer: If they do not use maths then maths will be used on them. Ensure your children understand that if they are unskilled labour then they will probably struggle to make ends meet until they die.

On a broader scale, we need to take maths out of the closet. We now talk about sex in public; we need to go one step further and be honest with our children about maths.

Ann:

xstephen:

06 Nov 2014 5:56:52pm

I expected we would be further down this path by now than what we are. I fully expect the pace will accelerate. The problem is we have no Government starting to position policies for when vast numbers of people are no longer needed. Silly to have raised the age pension age when we still have unemployment. We should have no young people in unemployment except those that truly reject employment (and they shouldn't get cash). We should offer early age pensions in the locations and numbers necessary to soak up the young unemployed. We need to be determining how to ensure wealth can be spread. And we need to celebrate the end of the age of the tedium of work (and lots of jobs are just that) and embrace a culture of enjoying and caring for each other. Pigs will fly......

Gody A.:

Alpo:

06 Nov 2014 8:22:50pm

Algorithms and the information technology that follows, and also mechanisation are making some of the human work less relevant?..... Great!.... Tax those earning money from such advances, to the tune of 90% or more of their REAL income and give the money to the rest, so that the poet can write poetry, the musician concerts, the architect build new buildings, the scientist investigate exactly what s/he wants to investigate, the philosopher think, the sportspeople play, the dancer dance....It's easy, and it's possible!

mrscribble:

07 Nov 2014 9:17:36am

These nasty job-taking algorithms are the direct result and natural evolution from the 'growth' requirement touted by many capitalist economists. Surely there's no surprise here, nor expectation it could be stopped without a radical rethink of the 'consume and grow' norm?

Joseph B:

07 Nov 2014 10:57:00am

Alan, you are confused. Algorithms are not the problem, computer skills are the solution for those who want a good high paying job. Yes computers are the future and create enormous wealth and productivity that previously did not exist. Every occupation such as the ones you mentioned like doctors artist and driver are more productive because of computers. Programming and computer skills should be mandatory from year 6 on. However we have seen a decline in Australian University students studying computer programming at a time when the demand for those skills has never been higher. Get with the times or perish.

LK:

07 Nov 2014 11:57:44am

Joseph B, no one disputes that technology is a great benefit to society. But what happens when technology replaces the doctor, teacher, waiter, lawyer, accountant, miner or whoever. Where do those people go to find other work? Your answer seems to be that we all train for IT. But there are only so many people though who will be needed to work in the IT area. What about the rest? And how awful would the world be if the only work available was IT related. How dreary it all sounds.

Computers create wealth and productivity for some, but what about the others who are made obsolete by it?

Melena Santorum:

07 Nov 2014 12:33:21pm

Yes, I read Lanier's book and found it pretty persuasive, and consequently frightening.

I think we're reaching a crisis point between an increasingly 'user pays' neoliberal society and one where human labour is worth less and less. It seems to me the thing to do is to have a conversation, while we still have some bargaining power, about the broader vision of human societies and cultures. We have the opportunity to use technology and our collective wisdom to meet everyone's needs and address the challenges we collectively face e.g. ecological/material concerns. Instead, we'll probably use it for privatised gains - I don't mind so much about the privatised gains (in the sense that someone is receiving a benefit for their labour) except that it comes at the expense of our power to take effective collective action, particularly against 'wicked problems.'

This is not the time to be asleep and think that the status quo (or a blind revolution) is going to deliver the solutions we need.

Peterputer:

07 Nov 2014 1:12:27pm

Read "Wasted On The Young", an old SF story by John Brunner. Good SF often gives us a view into possible futures, this one long before the internet, mobile phones etc. the problem is not robots creatng all the wealth, it is with distribution of that wealth, and with people to live productive lives. If the rich own all the wealth, there are no consumers, and soon no wealth - no point having your robots producing 17 billion iphones for $20 each, if no one can afford to buy one. Ennui is a bigger problem.